Was Aegon I Targaryen a Violent Psychopath?

[Durran Durrandon]

Aegon was something that is sometimes worse than a psychopath. He was a believer in his own magical destiny. I am not taking the time to go look up all the references, but I think there is a fair amount of indication that the Targs going back to Aegon, believed they had a magical destiny and that continued through Rhaegar's attempt to birth the Prince that Was Promised. Ultimately, I think he believed everything he was doing was justifiable, Birthing the messiah and ushering in the utopian age justified to him some people dying in war, if they refuse to bend their knee, The smaller justifications, the fact that he was largely putting a lot of bad rulers out of business just helped to support the decision. Certainly he attempted to rule well, and some of his progeny tried to institute progressive reforms. Aegon V in particular seemed set on weakening the power of the nobles and strengthening the small folk.

I think the more important point as it applies to Daenerys is that, so far, she has hesitated on being this kind of invader. She has avoided acquiring troops that will rape and pillage. She has refused to kill hostages. She has put herself at risk to provide medical help to people dying of the bloody flux. I know many people think she is stupid and naive, and she has been the later. We have to keep in mind her age and the fact that she has been raised to believe that she has the right to the Iron Throne, and no one, not even her most moral advisers have ever challenged her on this. However, she did come to the realization that the method of conquest matters. I think it is possible that conquest itself will ultimately be something that she decides is wrong. And then George will write in some excuse for her to do it anyways and have us still like her.

Now how did Aegon feel about the people that he killed? I imagine that much like many people he abstracted it and didn't feel it closely. We walk the world daily with people who abstract the violence committed in our name, by our governments. Then again, maybe he felt it more closely than most rulers. He need make a giant metal chair out of razor blades for himself to sit on.

[The silver dragon]

When Aegon invaded Westeros it was fragmented into regional kingdoms that constantly warred with each other. After the Conquest Westeros was one kingdom that constantly warred with other kingdoms (see Dorne) as well as several civil wars among Targs.

Take your pick. Both seem pretty terrible honestly.

one had periods of peace,

the other would be a perpetual sate of hostility and raiding. (and in some iron born thrall taking and you got a fun time.)

you take your pick.

[LmL]

I think we get that, we just don't think Aegon was any more cruel than all the other kings who went to war for power. At least I don't. From the time the First Men appeared in Westeros up until Aegon's Conquest, lords and kings were fighting and killing each other to gain power. Same goes for Aegon, only he had dragons. I'm not arguing what he did was right, I'm just saying that he wasn't particularly more cruel and violent than others in that time.

I’ll agree that he wasn’t worse than other would be rulers who play the Game of Thrones for their own benefit and end up causing wars. I think I am making the case that all such people are putting their own greed ahead of the lives of thousands, and thus, ought to be viewed fairly critically.

[LmL]

Aegon was something that is sometimes worse than a psychopath. He was a believer in his own magical destiny. I am not taking the time to go look up all the references, but I think there is a fair amount of indication that the Targs going back to Aegon, believed they had a magical destiny and that continued through Rhaegar's attempt to birth the Prince that Was Promised. Ultimately, I think he believed everything he was doing was justifiable, Birthing the messiah and ushering in the utopian age justified to him some people dying in war, if they refuse to bend their knee, The smaller justifications, the fact that he was largely putting a lot of bad rulers out of business just helped to support the decision. Certainly he attempted to rule well, and some of his progeny tried to institute progressive reforms. Aegon V in particular seemed set on weakening the power of the nobles and strengthening the small folk.

I think the more important point as it applies to Daenerys is that, so far, she has hesitated on being this kind of invader. She has avoided acquiring troops that will rape and pillage. She has refused to kill hostages. She has put herself at risk to provide medical help to people dying of the bloody flux. I know many people think she is stupid and naive, and she has been the later. We have to keep in mind her age and the fact that she has been raised to believe that she has the right to the Iron Throne, and no one, not even her most moral advisers have ever challenged her on this. However, she did come to the realization that the method of conquest matters. I think it is possible that conquest itself will ultimately be something that she decides is wrong. And then George will write in some excuse for her to do it anyways and have us still like her.

Now how did Aegon feel about the people that he killed? I imagine that much like many people he abstracted it and didn't feel it closely. We walk the world daily with people who abstract the violence committed in our name, by our governments. Then again, maybe he felt it more closely than most rulers. He need make a giant metal chair out of razor blades for himself to sit on.

Great points about Dany - I agree that she is battling with her inner demon, aka FIre and Blood, aka “might makes right.” She’s often chosen a different path, which I think represents her internal conflict of the heart. The extent to which she embraces “fire and blood,” and the mindset of a conqueror, is the extent to which she goes down the dark path. I am actually expecting her arc to end with this realization, and a refutation of fire and blood, perhaps by sacrificing her dragons. If she can do this, she may actually make a great Queen in post-magic Westeros (which I believe is the endgame).

EDIT:Addition: Just wanted to make it clear, I think I’ve been convinced that Aegon wasn’t necessarily a psychopath, just someone who generally subscribes to the philosophy of might makes right, which I suppose was common enough back then to be considered “normal” as opposed to “psychopathic." I still stand by what I say in regards to morality of wars of choice, however.

[shmewdog]

one had periods of peace,

the other would be a perpetual sate of hostility and raiding. (and in some iron born thrall taking and you got a fun time.)

you take your pick.

Braavos in a heartbeat. Maybe Lys...

[LmL]

In addition to what everyone else, the context should not be ignored. If Aegon lived in 2015 US he might have attempted an aggressive stock purchase of Westeros Inc. But in the feudal world we are talking about fire and blood were the tools of the trade. We cannot use the current mindset and morality standards to draw conclusions on the personalities and judge the actions of people that act in a completely different setting.

With all respect, and you know I respect you Cookiesbane, I must disagree strongly with this notion. If we were talking social norms, ok, today’s standards are different.

Killing people has always been wrong. Always. Killing people on a mass scale has always been very wrong. Aegon chose to invade Westeros for his own personal benefit, knowing it would result in the death of thousands, as war always does. We have no indication this was a philanthropic agenda to end war in Westeros. He simply took everything, with brute force. I’m sorry, but I cannot fathom how that decision is anything but ‘wrong,' in any era. He wasn’t on defense - he invaded another land with an army, because he wanted to.

Is anyone on this thread really saying they would choose to uproot themselves from a stable, secure, and wealthy existence and start a war of choice, simply because they have the baddest weapons? Really? That completely blows my mind.

Wars of choice are, to me, always indefensible.

[LmL]

When people say “oh, it was medieval times, it was violent,” what they are really admitting is that medieval times were violent BECAUSE of people like AEGON TARGARYEN. And that’s my point. All the misery comes from people who think that might makes right. Everyone espousing this philosophy is responsible for the darkness and depravity of such times.

[Cookiesbane]

With all respect, and you know I respect you Cookiesbane, I must disagree strongly with this notion. If we were talking social norms, ok, today’s standards are different.

Killing people has always been wrong. Always. Killing people on a mass scale has always been very wrong. Aegon chose to invade Westeros for his own personal benefit, knowing it would result in the death of thousands, as war always does. We have no indication this was a philanthropic agenda to end war in Westeros. He simply took everything, with brute force. I’m sorry, but I cannot fathom how that decision is anything but ‘wrong,' in any era. He wasn’t on defense - he invaded another land with an army, because he wanted to.

Is anyone on this thread really saying they would choose to uproot themselves from a stable, secure, and wealthy existence and start a war of choice, simply because they have the baddest weapons? Really? That completely blows my mind.

Wars of choice are, to me, always indefensible.

First of all, all wars are wars of choice. Even a defending nation can choose surrender.

I believe everyone will agree that war is indeed a horrible thing. However, this doesn't mean that ti doesn't lead to positive outcomes for those who participate in it and those who don't. Just some historical examples, the US civil war solidified the american national identity, the second world war lead to the modern state relations of today and even "smaller" violent "incidents" such as the french revolution lead to significant improvements in people's lives. That does'n of course mean war is a necessity for improvement or that war should be taken lightly. Nonetheless, in order to judge the effects and the necessity of a violent act you should firstly consider the situation before and the situation after.

No let's about Aegon and his Conquest. I simply believe it ended with a positive outcome. Before AC you had 6-8 kingdoms constantly fighting wars. With Aegon, the idea of a unified westerosi identity was introduced and with that a peace that allowed people to somewhat improve their situation. I am pretty sure that the people of the riverlands were quite happy when they were allowed to continue with their lives instead of fighting against ironmen when the conquest ended. Did everything go well after the conquest. Obviously no, and events such as the the attempted conquest of dorne, the dance and the blackfyre rebellion were quite bloody and made lots of people suffer and die. However, even without targaryens the notion of a unified peaceful westeros still remains.

[The silver dragon]

Braavos in a heartbeat. Maybe Lys...

1.) slain by a bravosi, due to him thinking you were offering a challenge.

2.) poisoned in a whore house, after you lose track of how much money you have.

[Lord Damian]

I think Aegon was inspired by the same prophecies that eventually got into Rheagar's head. Lets fact it, the Targs believe that they have a destiny to fight the lord of darkness blah blah. They never seemed to think that they spread a whole lot of darkness themselves over 300 years. Aegon used the Argolac incident as a pretext for war he was prepared for and wanted.